The cancer of intolerance and how to fight it

It's a common mistake. Captain James T. Kirk even claimed that Spock "did a little too much LDS" in Star Trek IV.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Isn't there a church or cult in Australia where those who leave are persecuted, targeted and threatened? That is an intolerant act, something that no one should stand for.

On being shunned for speaking out against the church, I asked a lot of questions. Difficult questions. Uncomfortable questions. Questions that no one could give the answer for. It might be because I was clear in not attacking the church in asking this, but what I think is more of a problem in some churches is that it is very much a clique. For those who did not grow up within the church it can be hard for new people to feel accepted, because you have this group who have known each other for something like twenty years. There is no question that there is a lot of problems that need to be fixed within the church system, problems that can be easily fixed if the church turned to what they study for guidance. In all honesty however not only is it poor when they do not follow Jesus' teachings the way some of the churches turn away those who honestly question (as opposed to looking for something they can use against the church) it is little wonder why some become atheist.

 

What happens when the group's rules themselves are viewed by the larger society as intolerant? An example might be a white supremacist church that views interracial marriage as a sin and excommunicates people who try to marry "outside their race" or similarly a homophobic church that views homosexuality as a sin and excommunicates its gay members.

Must religions that organize themselves around principles of intolerance be equally tolerated by the larger society under the rubric of protecting freedom of religious expression from intolerance?

 

I'm not saying that one has to tolerate the beliefs that they have, just that if one is going to argue against the group, the problem is their intolerant views, and not that they kick people out that don't agree with those views.

 

To Jabbadabbadoo's last post:

To be tolerant, you would have to tolerate the racists and anti-homosexuals. Being tolerant is not dependent on whether others are tolerant. You could believe that they should be tolerant, too, but if YOUR goal is to be tolerant, then to fit the definition, you'd have to tolerate even the intolerant.

 

For me it's simple...we must put our differences aside and stand against those who seek to eradicate the source of their obsessive hatred, otherwise we'll fall.

 

Except that no one can realistically do any eradicating, Nancy. That's why your fears are unjustified.

 

No but they try. There are those within the church system who strive for the death of homosexuals. The Klu Klux Klan seek the death of African Americans. There are atheists who want to try and make people either give up their religion or make them suffer for it (through ridicule, passing laws to have their children taken away, ect). Let's not mince words here, all are crackpots, dangerous crackpots. They might not have the nuance to achieve their goals but they're going to hurt as many gays, blacks and\or theists as they can anyway. Part of the problem I believe lies in being against one form of intolerance and not the other, or supporting one form of intolerance to attack another. As lofty a goal as it may sound if we shift the focus from homosexuals being the problem, or religion, whatever being the problem, and focus it on intolerance, then we can end the conflict.

 

Killing blacks or gays is not nearly the same as ridiculing believers. So yeah, it makes sense to differentiate between types of intolerance.

For the rest: To think you can rid the world of all intolerance is extremely naieve and... if I may say so... extremlely intolerant.

 

First, we have to be clear that mainstream Christians living in the United States, and that encompasses a wide array of different denominations, cults, sects, etc., are not persecuted for their beliefs. Promoting the idea that American Christians live under constant threat of religious intolerance is just plain ignorant, bordering on the obscenely retarded.

There are some exceptions, for example when those beliefs involve sexually abusing children inside sealed off religious compounds, and so on. Intolerance against illegal activities ought to have special dispensation I'd argue.

 

Hmmm...this conflict over religion and atheism, or race, or homosexuality, or politics. If I may ask if there was a way to end the conflict would you want it?

 

There is a way to end the conflict between religion and atheism: wait for religion to die out. EDIT: the reality is there isn't much of a conflict. The atheist-religious "conflict" is at best a tropical depression on the intolerance scale. It's certainly not a category 5 intolerance conflict like Israelis vs. Palestinians or Karl Rove vs. the American people.

 

But you see that's part of the problem. There are those driven by an obsessive hatred for it that are trying to hasten it's demise. They do so by trying to break other's belief in religion, by making them feel they are evil for following religion, by infringing on the right to religion and trying to pass anti religious laws.

 

Nancy, there are millions of Christians in the United States, and its government is primarily made up of Christians. Your worries are irrational, to say the least. There's simply no basis for your concern.

 

There are folks on the Christian side who have an inability to show tolerance, too.

The problem is, how much of their lack of tolerance is their fault, and how much of it comes from being pushed a bit too far?

Does intolerance on one end bring about a reciprocal lack of tolerance from those who are the target of intolerance?

 

nancyallen posted:

But you see that's part of the problem. There are those driven by an obsessive hatred for it that are trying to hasten it's demise. They do so by trying to break other's belief in religion, by making them feel they are evil for following religion, by infringing on the right to religion and trying to pass anti religious laws.

What you mean to say is that there are those that hold a contrary view to you and who believe that religion is harmful and wish for its demise in the belief that a better world will emerge. There are those that publish or post their reasons on why they hold such views. People are at liberty to read these views and form their own opinions. They may agree or disagree. It's an exchange of ideas. I think it's called "freedom". Do you really oppose this?

Conflict is healthy and necessary. If people take it too far then they risk breaking the law and being punished. That is why we have laws. If we have no conflict, no opposing views, no call for change and new ideas then we would have no social, ethical or moral progress whatsoever. Intolerance can be good. Just ask a Protestant.

 

Just one question: Who gets to decide which intolerance is "good" and what is "bad" intolerance?

 

I suppose ultimately it is the legislators and the courts in terms of sanctioning 'intolerance' (negatively or positively) but it is really a matter of personal opinion.

 

I have to say this has been my favorite post made in this intire thread. This boils it all down. People put out their beliefs, if someone chooses to believe in what they say, then that is their choice. If these ideas are so bad, then it will work itself out in the end as no one will follow them.

I think it all comes down to this. If we take away someone's beliefs than we are just as bad as anyone out there. I've stated this before, from what I've seen the people who have been repeatedly called upon as calling for the extermination or abolishment of diffrent beliefs, are doing just that. Calling. Not acting out.

Now those that do act out and commit acts against others should be persecuted if their acts break the law, but other wise, it will all work out in the end.

 

I would like Nancy to give an example of a single law infringing upon the free exercise of religion that someone currently in authority -- i.e. an active politician or legislator, not some crank on a website -- is currently attempting to pass. Such an example would lend credence to her repeated assertions that freedom of religion is under assault; the lack of such example would expose it as baseless hysteria.

If such a proposed law exists, I can practically guarantee you that it's a Christian trying to pass it.

 

It's a fact of modern life that anything proposed by a crank on a website immediately has the full force of law.

Expect TF.N to replace the legislative branch in a couple more years, depending on how well the upcoming TV show does...

 

Given that one would try to make people feel evil via words and arguments, that sounds rather intolerant of free speech.

 

Ha.


And QFT directed at lowie's post.

 

Does anyone think there is a problem with "How to fight intolerance"?

 

Below are a few web sites that might be worth reviewing. In it not only are ideas about making religion illegal discussed there are accusations there this is already happening.

http://www.techsupportforum.com/conversation-pit/political-scene/146901-illegal-christian.html
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TFJK8CFHS9FQNHU80
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-404052/How-Britain-turning-Christianity-crime.html
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/freethinking/
http://telicthoughts.com/uk-petition-against-religious-upbringing/
http://telicthoughts.com/dawkins-is-still-jumping-the-shark/
http://telicthoughts.com/richard-dawkins-and-child-abuse/

And we have a duty as human beings to stand against them.

Pushed too far as in their religion or pushed too far in terms of no longer being able to allow what they see as the wrong thing to happen? To the first if we look at Christianity what is said about homosexuality is true, it is vile and reprehensible to God, and the Israelites were told to put homosexuals to death. Note that this was a command to the Israelites, I do not recall this being a command for all people. As well as that it is also said that vengeance is his, not ours. There are those who forget these scriptures. As for the latter I can certainly understand why some, atheists included, have become proactive in fighting what they see as evil. But trying to force others to give up their beliefs is not the way to go about it. Killing blacks and gays is not the way to go about it.

If you refer to being treated as you treat others then that is certainly a fair and accurate description of how intolerance breeds intolerance, hatred breeds hatred, and there is certainly quite a bit of obsessive hatred on all sides fueling intolerance.

It is because of freedom that I am speaking out against intolerance, or to be more fair the obsessive hatred that is behind some forms of intolerance.

It could be argued that some forms of conflict are too hard, too fast. No attempt is made to test the waters first and instead all regard to how opposing views, calls for change and new ideas would be accepted are thrown to the four winds.

I think much of it would be obvious. Most people would agree that infringing on people's rights is bad intolerance. To take someone's children away because they follow religion or otherwise make laws against religion would be the same, I think most people would be against it. There are a few who support the idea, we may have already s